03: Therefore all Members of Parliament and Government Officials are equal before the law.

11: No person has the right to initiate force against another person.

12: All Members of Parliament and Government Officials are people.

13: Therefore no Member of Parliament or Government Official has the right to initiate force against another person.

21: No person has the right to initiate force against another person.

22: No person has the right to authorise a third party to initiate force against another person.

23: Therefore an electoral vote is not permission to initiate force against another person.

31: An abstract entity has no power to confer super-human rights or privileges on any person.

32: “Government” is an abstract entity.

33: Therefore “government” has no power to confer super-human rights or privileges on any person.

41: All Members of Parliament and Government Officials believe “government” has literal power.

42: All Members of Parliament and Government Officials believe “government” gives them super-human rights and privileges.

43: Therefore all Members of Parliament and Government Officials are deluded.

51: All people who run for office believe “government” has literal power.

52: All people who vote for the people who run for office believe “government” has literal power.

53: Therefore all people who run for office or vote are deluded.

61: Deluded people do not see the world clearly.

62: All Members of Parliament, Government Officials and voters are deluded.

63: Therefore, Members of Parliament, Government Officials and voters do not see the world clearly.

71:Deluded people do not tend to make rational decisions.

72: All Members of Parliament, Government Officials and voters are deluded.

73: Therefore, Members of Parliament, Government Officials and voters should not make decisions.

81: Not seeing the world clearly and making irrational decisions is dangerous.

82: Members of Parliament, Government Officials and voters do not see the world clearly or make rational decisions.

83: Therefore, Members of Parliament, Government Officials and voters are dangerous,

91: Dangerous institutions should be abolished.

92: “Government” is a dangerous institution.

93: Therefore, “government” should be abolished.

Exploration.

01: All people are equal before the law.

This is an assumption on my part. In my view, it does not mean that any two people committing the same crime will receive the same punishment down to the minute of time-served or penny of fine paid. Nor does it mean a poor man stealing £5 and a rich man stealing £5 million, or vice-versa, will be treated exactly the same regardless of circumstances. Did the poor man steal to buy food or medicine for his family? Did the rich man steal to keep his factory going, to save a thousand jobs? Or did they both just blow it on booze and sex? Was it necessity? Greed? A momentary human lapse? These issues are for our courts, and our juries, to decide as they arise.

To be equal before the law means two things: the right to a fair trial and the right to challenge the law. These rights carry the responsibilities of being honest and abiding by the court’s decision.

I used the words “equal before the law” instead of “equal under the law” because to be before the law describes an interactive, dynamic system whilst to be under the law describes a nonreciprocal, static system.

What is law? Law is a complex thing, needlessly so. Man’s law is the most complex of all, its modern incarnation evolving from maritime law to business law to legislative law. These laws concern themselves chiefly with Economics, for example the collection of parking fines or the imposition of license fees. Legislative law is increasingly concerned with raising revenue for the state.

Nature’s Law, often confused with the ‘law of the jungle,’ is simply mankind’s nature – how we behave as a rule. Just about everyone alive knows this law and knows it innately. You don’t kill people. You don’t beat people up. You don’t rape. You don’t steal. You don’t burn each other’s houses down. Pretty basic stuff.

From this comes the Common Law, which is absurdly simple: don’t start. It is forbidden to initiate violence against another person. Everything else is permitted.

This is the law before which all people are equal.

The above is an ideal, perhaps a delusion on my part, for that is not how our courts currently work. Like any system comprised of interacting human beings, our courts have flaws. This is not to say they are useless or even counter-productive but that there is room for improvement. For example, its increasing lack of resources and government meddling are areas of immediate concern. As we shall see along the way, like most of our public services this one is easy to fix. At least in theory.

My opening statement, then, transpires to be weak. In our society today all people are not equal before the law, or even under it. Would the police bring action against a knight of the realm, a lord, a prince or a queen as easily as a used car salesman or a checkout girl? Would the court treat them the same? The judge? The jury? I fear not.

But I advance this first statement all the same, because it is how I think most people want their relationship with the law to be. I want my law to be the same as yours, my access to the courts the same as yours. If ever you and I disagree, and cannot solve our disagreement, then I want to stand before the same court you do and be given the same consideration you get.

02: All Members of Parliament and Government Officials are people.

I think this one’s pretty straightforward, unless David Ike’s right – in which case, all bets are off and I bags the first seat on the first secret CIA starship outta’ here.

A human being in a costume, for example a police officer, a paramedic or a judge, is nothing more than a human being in a costume. The costume (or badge, or warrant, or cerificate) is an inanimate thing and cannot bestow super-human rights or privileges on whomever happens to be wearing it.

No matter the costume, there is a person underneath. A person with no more or fewer rights and responsibilities than anyone else. Just a person. Like you.

03: Therefore all Members of Parliament and Government Officials are equal before the law.

If my opening statement was weak then this conclusion is weak for the same reasons. A brief glance in the general direction of Tony Blair bears this out. Members of Parliament and Government Officials tend not to be equal with the rest of us before the law.

But again I let this stand for the same reasons. This is how I, at least, want our laws to apply. In their purest sense, it’s how they must apply. But our world is not pure and it is the impurities of reality weakening this argument – that and my inability to find a better way of putting it.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each and every one of us, as members of a wider society, to decide whether or not we want this opening conclusion to be applied. Regardless of whether you who read this are in favour of total regulation or total anarchy, or any point in between, do you want every person to be equal before, or under, the law you envisage applied in your ideal society? Is there a case to be made for certain people being raised above or set aside from the law? If we cannot raise ourselves above or set ourselves aside from the law, how can we do the same to others? How do we confer on others a right we ourselves do not possess? Or if we do possess the right to raise ourselves above the law, does this confer on us the responsibility to also raise up those around us?

11: No person has the right to initiate force against another person.

This is a biggie. A cornerstone. The Golden Rule.

But what is “force?” Easy to answer, this question is. Force is when Person A causes loss, harm or damage to Person B without Person B’s consent. This can be anything from teasing to murder. If you wouldn’t want something done to you, don’t do the same thing to somebody else. Everybody knows this, even if they choose to ignore it.

Again we come back to the absolute, basic core of the law: don’t start.

Now, human beings are animals. I mean this in a scientific sense, in that we are biological entities possessing the same fundamental traits as all the other biological entities on this planet and even, perhaps, this universe. (Whether or not human beings have souls, whilst an important topic, is not relevant to this argument.) Each of us is unique and therefore imperfect. Our brains are a seething pot of cells, chemicals and electricity; lizard brains wrapped in mammal brains wrapped in primate brains wrapped in human brains. And fundamental to that mass is human nature.

Whatever its root, biochemical or mystical, human nature is a powerful driver in all our lives. We are social animals, we like to be in groups – supporting sports teams or boy bands, throwing dinner parties or running internet chat rooms, joining political parties or flying a national flag – and our nature, our instincts, have evolved to foster society. (I think we have stopped listening to the finer aspects of these instincts, focusing our attentions instead on the rhetoric of those who would have us ignore our instincts altogether and treat one another with belligerence and mistrust. But that’s just my view.)

As social animals, our instinct is to get along with the people around us. To a very large extent, this is what billions of people all over the world do every day. They rub along. Our instinct is to get along but, due to our fractured nature at present, we can only rub along. And rubbing causes friction, so there will always be human conflicts. Scuffles outside the pub on a Saturday night, spouses shouting at one another, theft, murder, rape. But, despite media hysteria to the contrary, our country at least is not drowning in these problems. In my view, it never will. This is because our fundamental nature is social and our fundamental law is to not harm one another.

Of course, there’s always the head-the-ball who wants to initiate force on somebody else – the bully, the rapist, the murderer. Despite our basic pacifist nature, we each of us know that it is perfectly permissible to fight back in self-defence. You can use force to repel force (and any questions that need asking can be asked by a court when the dust’s settled, if necessary) but you can’t initiate force: don’t start.

This, then, I think is a fairly robust statement. As a general (but by no means ubiquitous) rule of thumb, if people don’t threaten you, you don’t threaten them. That is our default setting.

Unfortunately for us, that default setting is increasingly threatened by the threats we percieve around us. As we shall see, a great many of these threats are phantoms, mirrors and fog.

12: All Members of Parliament and Government Officials are people.

They are, you know, they really are. Government Officials especially are simply ordinary human beings doing a job. As fellow human beings, they deserve and have my respect. Whether or not I respect their actions is an entirely different matter.

13: Therefore no Member of Parliament or Government Official has the right to initiate force against another person.

Another quick glance in the general direction of Tony Blair might, at first glance, diminish this conclusion. He was responsible, after all, for initiating force against millions and yet remains untried. That being the case, he must have had the right, or the authority, to initiate that force because it was given to him by “government.” As we shall see, that simply cannot be the case.

Although this conclusion is valid, it does not chime with our current reality. Members of Parliament and Government Officials initiate force against people as a matter of course. MPs tell the Officials what steps to take and the Officials take them. You and I are expected to comply with the Officials’ demands. A demand is the initiation of force.

The classic explanation of the way public systems steal your money, an initiation of force in itself, is to imagine that I turn up at your house one day, uninvited, and without any agreement with you I mow your lawn and weed your flower beds. Then I knock on your door and demand £250 for the work I’ve done. Are you going to pay up? If you think I’ve done a good job, you might. Or you might give me fifty quid for my cheek or tell me to sling my hook and call the police. The choice is yours.

What’s the difference, fundamentally, between the above and a demand from the local council for emptying your bins? Forget the necessity of emptying bins for a moment, that question is not at issue here. What is at issue is the fundamental nature of the relationship between a person and their local council, which is made up of lots of other people – all sharing the same rights and responsibilities, all equal before the law. Yet the local council does not invite you to pay, they demand it. If you don’t comply, they threaten. Imagine that was me on your doorstep, demanding payment for doing your garden outside any agreement and then, when you refuse, resorting to threats.

I am a person, the people who work at the council are people. Why would you not accept that kind of behaviour from this person but comply with those people? Is it for the sake of public order? For the sake of public facilities? Fear? A combination of all and/or more than the above?

Although it does not conform with current reality, I think this is a strong conclusion.

21: No person has the right to initiate force against another person.

Not even for a laugh.

To prove the rule, Person A might physically push Person B away from some unnoticed danger, causing a fall and a sprained ankle to Person B. Technically, Person B could charge Person A with the initiation of force but, in a genuine case, would likely not do so and forgive the crime in light of the outcome. If, however, Person A shoved Person B out of the way on a stairwell for a laugh, causing a fall and a sprained ankle to Person B, Person B has every right to bring charges.

Don’t start, all right? Just don’t.

22: No person has the right to authorise a third party to initiate force against another person.

I can’t beat you up, push you around, steal your stuff or kill you. As well as being unlawful, those things are also spectacularly impolite. I can’t do these things to you not because I’m a wimp, or because I’m incapable, but because I don’t have the right. And you don’t have the right to do those things to me, either.

If I don’t have the right to do nasty things to you, then I can’t pass this right on to a third person and ask them to hurt you in my stead. Furthermore, If I get a third person to steal your stuff and that third person beats you up, with or without my knowledge, the third person cannot claim I gave him the authority to do so. This is quite simply because I do not possess that authority to pass on.

23: Therefore an electoral vote is not permission to initiate force against another person.

This is another conclusion that does not conform with reality, despite its validity.

Members of Parliament, Government Officials and voters alike see the electoral vote as a permission slip for initiating force against people. Permission to demand money. Permission to demand obedience. Permission to drop bombs on people. Permission to spy on you. All these things constitute the initiation of force. (Again, forget the “yes but we need somebody to fix the roads and collect the taxes” argument as it isn’t relevant here. The focus is on the current situation, not the consequences of doing something, or nothing, about that situation.)

Members of Parliament stand on votes to issue legislation, which is mostly instructions for Public Officials to initiate force against people, most commonly by demanding more money. Somewhere between the voter and the Member of Parliament, by some unknown process, non-existent personal rights and responsibilities spring into being and become “authority.” Authority is the alchemy of democracy, it turns base popularity into iron rule by bathing it in incomprehensible legislation. Legislation gives the Members of Parliament their weapon and the myth of “government” gives them their battle cry.

31: An abstract entity has no power to confer super-human rights or privileges on any person.

An abstract entity, in this statement, is something like a sports club or a supermarket chain.

St Helens Rugby League Football Club is an abstract entity – for, where is it? It’s not in the stadium because they knocked the old one down and moved to a new place. It’s not just in the players or the coaches or the trainers or the medics. It’s not in the boardroom or the back-room or the terraces. It’s not out on the car park or in the club shop or underneath the burger van. It’s not in the flag or the songs or the signed shirts. It’s not even out on the pitch, because St Helens need an opposing abstract entity to play against under common rules in order to actually be St Helens in any meaningful sense. St Helens RLFC is an abstract entity maintained by the belief of the people networked together under its flag. It’s not an actual, real thing in itself, though it is comprised of real components.

St Helens RLFC is one of a dozen or so clubs in the equally abstract entity known as the Superleague. (If you’re not a fan, you should give it a go – it really is the most marvellous sport to watch.) As an abstract entity, St Helens RLFC has no rights or powers in and of itself, the only rights and powers present are those possessed by the people who make up the club. If those people wish to play every game under different rules, they cannot claim St Helens RLFC gives them the right to do so. The very idea is a nonsense.

Similarly, a supermarket chain might seem like a real thing but is also an abstract entity. In this case, complex networks of producers, manufacturers, suppliers, hauliers, buyers, sellers, loaders, unloaders, shelf-stackers, managers, accountants, gardeners, janitors and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, all working under a single banner over many locations. The people and the assets are real but the brand is just a logo and a catchphrase, an abstract entity.

32: “Government” is an abstract entity.

This is the big one, isn’t it? I can hear you foaming all the way back here in November 2015. Who says time travel is impossible?

You can see “government,” can’t you? They have Westminster and local council offices and sheds full of grit and civil servants and Big Ben and… Oh. St Helens RLFC. Supermarkets.

“Government” is nothing more or less than the people who operate under its logo. In itself, it does not exist and possesses absolutely no rights and powers other than those carried by those people who work in its name. “Government” is blind, deaf, mute, unfeeling, uncomprehending, inanimate, unreal, powerless and without rights. It is a name, an idea, an artificial construct, nothing more.

33: Therefore “government” has no power to confer super-human rights or privileges on any person.

I think I have already established that the voters cannot pass on rights or responsibilities they do not themselves possess to Members of Parliament via a vote. A Prime Minister cannot point to votes as permission to start a war.

So then, that warmongering Prime Minister might point to “government” as the source of his authority. But “government” is an abstract concept, it cannot decide to confer upon the warmonger the super-human right to ignore the rights of others and bomb the shit out of Foreignistan. It cannot decide anything, it cannot authorize anything, it cannot confer rights.

Clearly, again, my lovely thesis diverges from observed reality. Members of Parliament and Government Officials again and again claim the right to initiate force against people at the command of “government.” Moreover, people themselves accept the right of “government” to command them, even if, curiously, they don’t agree with its commands.

41: All Members of Parliament and Government Officials believe “government” has literal power.

They must do. They talk of “getting into power” and “using the power” to achieve this or that. “Getting into power” is a curious phrase, suggesting that the power is already there, most likely stored inside “government’s” magic cloud, and all they have to do is step into it. But surely, in a democracy, the idea is to bring the power of your constituents with you to the table?

In any case, Members of Parliament and Government Officials must believe that “government” has literal power. If they did not believe this, if they believed that they would be powerless to do anything public or private once elected, why bother?

I am certain many people strive for election in the sincere hopes of weilding “government” power in this way or that to cure one social ill or another. Their belief in this illusory power is fundamental to their ambitions for election, whatever those ambitions might be.

42: All Members of Parliament and Government Officials believe “government” gives them super-human rights and privileges.

The Members of Parliament decide to pass legislation requiring everyone using a motor vehicle to wear a seat belt. This is the initiation of force. The question as to whether or not wearing a seat belt is a good idea is here immaterial, we can each of us make that judgment for ourselves. The point is that the Members of Parliament, wielding rights nobody could possibly give them, are forcing their will on other people.

Now the Government Officials have their instructions, so too the police and courts.

Person A is driving a car without wearing a seat belt. Person B spots this, chases Person A down, stops Person A and demands money for the infraction of not wearing a seat belt. Put Person B in a police officer’s costume and this seems perfectly reasonable. Put Person B in a decorator’s overalls or a little black dress and the scenario blurs. But put Person A in a police officer’s costume and the scenario edges towards the absurd. We’ll stick with the straightforward scenario; Person A in civvies and Person B in a police officer’s costume.

Where does Person B get the right to stop Person A going about their lawful business and demand money for the “offence” of not wearing a seat belt? Whilst not on the clock, whilst out of costume, does Person B retain the right to stop and fine non-seat belt wearing drivers on his or her own personal authority? No, because stopping a person and demanding money is the initiation of force. Only when in costume does Person B assume the right to initiate force on behalf of legislation.

At the other end of the spectrum, let us imagine for a moment that Person A, drunk or mad or suicidal, is driving through busy streets causing death, injuries and mayhem. Person B spots this and drives to collide with Person A’s vehicle, bringing it to a halt. In this admittedly extreme scenario, does it matter what costume Person B is wearing? No, because it was obvious that Person A had to be stopped to prevent further loss of life. Yes, Person B did initiate force against Person A but it was defensive force as Person A had already initiated force on wider society by driving in a harmful manner.

So in the case of common law, no costume is required to take action to uphold the law, for example by stopping one person from harming another. But in the case of legislative law, the ability to impose restrictions and extract fines, an “official” costume (or warrant, or badge, or certificate) is required.

The accouterments and costumes of public officials aside, they are all people with no more or fewer rights and responsibilities than you or I. Yet they believe abstract entities like “government” give them super-human rights, such as the right to force you to wear a seat belt and fine you if you don’t, irrespective of how good or bad an idea seat belts are.

43: Therefore all Members of Parliament and Government Officials are deluded.

So, there’s this big, ancient, invisible thing that you can’t touch or smell or taste or hear and we call this thing “government.” Members of Parliament claim this figment gives them the right to initiate force against people as authorized by voters’ votes. They claim a non-existent abstract entity gives them the power to do things you aren’t allowed to do.

If I went around claiming an invisible blue pixie told me I had the right to push you around and take your stuff, and that just by listening to me you were agreeing to let me push you around and take your stuff, what would you call me?

Deluded.

51: All people who run for office believe “government” has literal power.

They’ve seen it all their lives. The Members of Parliament speak and things happen. The Members of Parliament call themselves “government.” Some call themselves “The Government” and some call themselves “The Opposition” but they are all “government.” All part of the same abstract entity.

So when the “government” says its going to hire 10,000 new nurses or retire 10,000 serving police officers, these things come to pass. Roads get built and maintained. Bins get emptied. Chip shop owners don’t make a habit of poisoning their customers. The “government” facilitates all of this, and more, to keep society together. In order to maintain this Herculean task, “government” gives its servants special rights and powers for the good of society as a whole.

Any person aspiring to Public Office must almost by definition believe in this power at least to some degree. It is, after all, the very power they want to use in championing whatever goals they believe in.

52: All people who vote for the people who run for office believe “government” has literal power.

They’ve seen it all their lives. The Members of Parliament speak and things happen. Even things they don’t want, like the Iraq War.

Even those people who believed the decision to go to war was wrong still believed “government” held the right to declare war in the first place. The argument advanced is not that initiating force against other people is a right our Members of Parliament do not possess, but that this non-existent right was misused.

When “government” dismantles the Health Service or starves the police and courts of resources, many people cry out, ‘you can’t do that!’ But this is never said as a command, only as a plea. People might or might not like what “government” does but believe it has the power to do it in either case. “I do not want you to beat me, Master, but I believe you have the right to do so.”

A voter, then, backs whomever will do the most good, or the least damage, if bestowed with the power of “government.”

53: Therefore all people who run for office or vote are deluded.

Do not mistake “government” for common-or-garden human organization. There are billions of people on this planet and trillions of tiny social interactions, economic encounters and stand-up rows every day.

Untold numbers of farmers, labourers, tractor drivers, fork-lift truck operators, Q.C. inspectors, packers, salespeople, secretaries, transport managers, truck drivers, mechanics, gardeners, unloaders, shelf-stackers, managers, shop-fitters, architects, engineers, builders, carpenters, electricians, decorators, designers, importers, exporters, transporters, pilots, sailors, air traffic controllers, planners, volunteers (health and safety volunteers, first-aiders, union reps, etc.), manufacturers, suppliers, bankers, financiers, stockbrokers, car park attendants, trolley-gatherers, security guards, lawyers, cleaners, check-out staff, advertisers, pest controllers and boards of directors network together in an almost unfathomably complex way every single day of the week just to service a single supermarket chain. All the consumer sees are lorries, advertisements and the supermarkets themselves. They assume the supermarket controls everything, that the supermarket is an actual real and tangible thing when it is in fact a complex network of people and groups masquerading as a consolidated, real entity.

So too with “government.” The main shop is in Westminster, where all the board members work. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Behind Westminster, or more properly under it, are countless government offices, buildings and properties all over the country. And in these places countless Government Officials go about their valuable work in the ways demanded by “government.”

Make no mistake, the core function of those people whom today I term Government Officials is vital to the running of our modern country. They fix the roads and keep the ambulances in good fettle and solve problems and all useful stuff like that. If the network supporting a single supermarket is complex, the network supporting a whole country is simply impossible to comprehend. It is this network, coupled with all the other networks in and around society, for which “government” glory-hounds in Westminster take credit – and assume dominion over.

The Member of Parliament accepts the super-human responsibility, bestowed by the abstract entity “government,” to empty your bins and with it the super-human right to empty those bins however he or she sees fit. Whether the Member of Parliament wants to triple all crews and plate dustbin lorries with gold sheets or replace half the workforce with cheap imported robots makes no difference – “government” gives them the right to do this – at least in their minds and the minds of their supporters.

It is as impossible for a Member of Parliament to understand and control the complex networks in their own constituencies, let alone the nation or the world, as it is for the CEO of a supermarket chain to understand and control every aspect of the networks behind the logo. The best they can hope for is influence but Members of Parliament and Government Officials present this influence as power.

People mistake the underlying structure through which society is fundamentally organized as proof of the existence and literal power of “government” when, in reality, the only power being exercised is that of individual human beings working in complex networks.

In the real world, the world out beyond these mere idealistic and inadequate words, “government” has power. It certainly seems to have power enough to send soldiers to fight threats abroad and riot police to fight threats at home. It has the power to shut down your chip shop and close your roads and get you into debt.

But this is not “government” power. As we have seen, it cannot be that because “government” is an abstract entity with no power or consciousness of its own. Nor is it “people power” because no vote implies permission to initiate force. “Government” power, then, is simply the will of Members of Parliament, Government Officials and Voters amalgamated and presented as a tangible thing capable of bestowing super-human rights and responsibilities on the worthy and super-human constraints and punishments on the unworthy.

61: Deluded people do not see the world clearly.

A long time ago I worked for a mini-bus company. Our main work was in airports but we also did a handful of community jobs – taking pensioners to and from day-centers, school runs for disabled children and hospital transfers. On one such hospital transfer, I had to drive an old lady and a nurse to a large psychiatric hospital. The old lady sat at the back of my mini-bus and, as I began driving, frightened me half to death by calling, ‘all right, settle down now.’

For the remainder of the journey, she gave a history lesson to an imaginary class. I can’t remember the exact content of the lesson now and I didn’t remember enough, or sadly care enough, to check her facts at the time. It sounded right, though, all those dates and kings and queens, and some of it rang bells with my own knowledge, shoehorned into me in the Hell on Earth that was high school.

But this wasn’t just an old lady reciting facts. She answered questions only she could hear, chastised behaviour only she could see and shared jokes with students only she could perceive. When the nurse tried to convince her the class wasn’t real, the old lady merely told her to hush, as if she were one of the imaginary students, and carried on.

Whether she did not see the mini-bus but a classroom instead, or whether she saw the mini-bus but populated its empty seats with imaginary students, or something else, I have no idea. She did not see the world clearly, that much was plain. The sad part, or the comforting part depending on your disposition, is that the old lady seemed to have no idea her perceptions were skewed. Indeed, she seemed happy in her delusion and I remember thinking how good a teacher she must have been, way better than any of my dusty old, musty old, boring old history teachers.

I wouldn’t have let her drive, though.

62: All Members of Parliament, Government Officials and voters are deluded.

Like the old lady, Members of Parliament, Government Officials and voters do not see the world as it is. In putting their faith and trust and loyalty in an abstract entity and extracting from it super-human rights, responsibilities and privileges, they convince themselves that it’s all real. Whether they see a different society to the one that actually exists or a society where anyone who doesn’t say anything must agree with them doesn’t matter – the illusion is the power “government” bestows on them.

There is power in the system, and lots of it. If you want to know where it is, look in the mirror. Look at the people around you. That’s all the power any society will ever have and all any society will ever need. But the myth of “government” has caused a usurpation of that power, mutated it into the right to bully and steal and turned it against the people.

I used the word “usurpation” and it strikes me this might not be true, I might be looking at it from the wrong angle, as if rights and responsibilities we once enjoyed have been taken from us. Whilst I think that’s true to a certain extent, there may be a larger issue here worth a brief digression.

We began, I suppose, in the times before symbolism and fire, with alpha humans. Without symbolism, without speech or abstract thought or logic, we led or followed by instinct alone. Leaders devised ways to preserve their positions, some good and some bad, methods which evolved alongside our intelligence and circumstances. The right of certain people to rule over the rest was unquestioned. No ruler was ever toppled and not replaced by another.

As we evolved, we needed more advanced reasons to justify our innate instinct to lead and be led. God was cited as the root, at first the leader seen as a physical embodiment of a deity on Earth and then later as merely the representative of the Deity. This evolved into families made royal by the grace, or tacit support, of God. These days, God has been all but removed from the equation, reduced (or embiggened) to personal preference. Our leaders today derive their power to lead from the people, who agree to be led.

Perhaps to break that concentration of power, and all the concomitant problems such a concentration creates, is the next natural step along in society’s evolution. So the ultimate dissolution of “government” and the redistribution of “government” power to individuals would be more a discovery of personal freedoms and responsibilities than a liberation of same previously stolen.

Digression aside, all Members of Parliament, Public Officials and voters look at the world through the prism afforded by an abstract entity.

63: Therefore, Members of Parliament, Government Officials and voters do not see the world clearly.

How can they? They see one another as either superiors or subordinates, not equals. Therefore, they see their roles and entitlements differently. The subordinates might not agree with the current level of disparity but they believe their superiors deserve more. The superiors might not agree with the current level of disparity either but still believe the inferiors deserve less. If they cannot see their fundamental equalities or rights and choose instead to imagine some people transcend others, then they are incapable of seeing the world clearly.

Like the old lady on the mini-bus, they’re looking at a world that isn’t there.

So why are we letting them drive?

71:Deluded people do not tend to make rational decisions.

I am turning into a fish. I must dive into the sea immediately. Worse – you are turning into a fish, I must push you into the sea immediately.

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. I must declare war immediately. Worse – Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, you must go to war immediately.

The banks are on the verge of collapse. I must bail them out immediately. Worse – the banks are on the verge of collapse, you must bail them out immediately.

I have screwed up. It doesn’t matter. Worse – I have screwed up but only you got hurt.

72: All Members of Parliament, Government Officials and voters are deluded.

Just like the old lady on the mini-bus but instead of seeing phantom pupils they see phantom rights, ghostly responsibilities and intangible powers as real things.

But what’s the harm? Mankind has suffered under one delusion or another forever. What did it matter to the peasant farmer in Wessex to discover the Earth went around the Sun and not the Sun around the Earth? This knowledge did not affect the dawns or the sunsets, didn’t knock the seasons out of joint, didn’t stop his turnips growing. But the heliocentric discovery paved the way for new perspectives and new research and, several generations later, the turnip farmer’s riding around on a tractor and living in an electrified house with hot and cold running water. Removing delusions leads to progress.

The delusion that some people are superior to others is one that has caused, and continues to cause, a great deal of unnecessary suffering and death.

73: Therefore, Members of Parliament, Government Officials and voters should not make decisions.

Of course they are perfectly free, just like the rest of us, to make decisions affecting only themselves or consenting parties, but not decisions affecting unsuspecting or unwilling parties. Once more, the knee-jerk reaction, “well if not them, who will decide what to do?” is not at issue here. There are practical answers to questions like that but this is not the forum to discuss them. Here I am concerned with our perception of and relationship with “government” and the legitimacy, or otherwise, of such a thing.

Members of Parliament should not issue punitive legislation or back taxation (theft) because they have no authority or permission to do so, as previously demonstrated. The best a Member of Parliament could do in a genuinely free democracy would be to suggest, advise or persuade. Initiation of force, for example to enforce the wearing of seat belts, would be forbidden.

Government Officials should not make decisions deleterious to people or initiate force against people in the name of “government” or legislation because the former does not exist and the latter carries no more weight than any written word, including these. Government Officials must remember that they are people and do not possess super-human rights or responsibilities, no matter what the deluded Members of Parliament claim. The Government Official who imposes a fine or sanctions on another person, causing loss, harm or damage to that other person, must take ultimate responsibility for that action personally. ‘I was just following orders’ can never again be held up as an excuse. An order to initiate force against another person is a wicked and unlawful order. Anyone who issues such an order exceeds their personal rights and anyone who follows such an order not only exceeds their personal rights but also breaks the common law.

Voters should not be allowed to make decisions affecting other people because they do not see the world clearly. Voters believe that by getting the party of their choice into “government,” that party will use assumed and mutated powers and rights for the public good. By voting for any person who believes he or she will, purely by way of achieving the greatest share of popualrity, be endowed with super-human rights and powers, the voter perpetuates the myth of “government” and prolongs our collective suffering. The voter sees the world from a kneeling position, looking up at the Members of Parliament and Government Officials in the hope they’ll look down with favour, or at least without malice.

81: Not seeing the world clearly and making irrational decisions is dangerous.

Seeing weapons of mass destruction that weren’t there and deciding to do something about it certainly transpired to be dangerous for very many Iraqis.

Believing themselves entitled to do so, United States politicians issued legislation banning the consumption and production of alcohol. The result was thousands dead and incarcerated.

Believing one race to be superior in ability and rights over another led to generations of slavery and unfathomable suffering and death.

82: Members of Parliament, Government Officials and voters do not see the world clearly or make rational decisions.

To be fair, no human being does or can see the world clearly and make rational decisions 100% of the time. The concept of “government,” however, is an unnecessary extra blind-spot in our social vision; a cataract we should get lasered off.

83: Therefore, Members of Parliament, Government Officials and voters are dangerous.

If you doubt the veracity of this conclusion, try refusing to pay your council tax and see how safe you feel.

91: Dangerous institutions should be abolished.

Any institution initiating force against people is dangerous.

92: “Government” is a dangerous institution.

People threaten, steal from, subjugate, kidnap and even kill other people in the name of “government” and with its imagined authority to “back them up.”

93: Therefore, “government” should be abolished.

I will not enlarge on this conclusion nor speculate on its ramifications at this point. If I have not made the case by now then a final desperate appeal will do no good.